TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:44:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 81

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

   Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones (Alan Boritz)
   Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones (Richard A. De Castro)
   Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones (Steven H. Lichter)
   Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (David A. Kaye)
   Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Jack Hamilton)
   Re: Advertising by New York Telephone (Michael Rubin)
   Re: Don't Trust the Phone Company - Part 2 (A. Padgett Peterson)
   Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Alan Boritz)
   Re: E-Mail Spying By Employers (Gary Breuckman)
   Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994 (Clarence Dold)
   Re: Dispelling a Myth From the Past (David A. Kaye)
   Re: TDRs and Wiretaps ([email protected])
   Re: Need Info on ISDN Phones (Beverly Taylor)
   Re: Converting 11 Bit Data to 10 (Lars Poulsen)
   Re: Another Vendor Disguises Self as "AT&T" (Tom Coradeschi)
   Re: What is This Number? (Stu Whitmore)
   Re: Telephone Nunbers in France (John R. Levine)
   Re: The Dawn of a New Age (Stephen Goodman)
   Re: Increase Stand-by Time of Mobile Phones (Dan J. Declerck)
   Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing (Tasvir Shah)
   Re: Lebanese Get Drunken Phones (Hugh Lagle)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                * [email protected] *

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: [email protected].

   ** Article submission address only: [email protected] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Paging Available on Cellular Phones
From: [email protected] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 07:46:38 EST
Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861


[email protected] (Scott Colbath) writes:

> Bell Atlantic here in Phoenix announced yesterday that they were
> making available to their cellular phone customers the ability to be
> pagable on their cell phones. Is this being done anywhere else? It
> sounds like a good idea. One is able to ditch the pager and just carry
> a phone. Any comments?

That's nothing new.  Just set call-forward-on-no-answer to your pager
number and you've got the same thing.


aboritz%[email protected]  or  uunet!drharry!aboritz
Harry's Place BBS (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Richard A. De Castro)
Subject: Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 17:33:07 GMT


[email protected] (Scott Colbath) writes:

> Bell Atlantic here in Phoenix announced yesterday that they were
> making available to their cellular phone customers the ability to be
> pagable on their cell phones. Is this being done anywhere else? It
> sounds like a good idea. One is able to ditch the pager and just carry
> a phone. Any comments?

It's a common method for the cellphone providers to increase on-air
time -- when I checked into similar "offers" here in LA, you were
charged for the time (in 30-second increments!) for the "page", and of
course for the response.

No, I still carry the pager.


[email protected]   Richard A. De Castro - California, North America, Sol-3

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones
Date: 13 Feb 1994 12:11:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


I believe PacBell Cellular offers this service, though I find Voice
Mail to be as good since if I'm not on to answer it then it could not
have been that important.


Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS
(909) 359-5338 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis Via PCP CACOL/12/24

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
Date: 13 Feb 1994 03:18:36 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Bill Llewellyn (thinker@
rahul.net):

> is the poor man's self-help to peace and quiet on the telephone. Oh, I
> know the ACLU and the Socially Responsible People don't approve of it,
> but then, I don't approve of them either.  PAT]

The ACLU has no policy one way or the other on Caller ID.  The ACLU
concerns itself only with Bill of Rights issues, and more specifically
First Amendment rights in test cases.  In California where Caller ID
is not in use, rape crisis centers were a driving force among groups
against Caller ID.  They're concerned that (as an example) a woman
calling to order a pizza could be harrassed by unwanted calls if the
pizza dude thought her voice was arousing.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course the fact that pizza
drivers are often (best case scenario) sent to the wrong address as a
'joke' on the residents of the place where the driver was sent causing
the company or driver to waste an order and lose money, or (worst
case scenario) beaten and robbed of their money and their orders by
people who lure them to a given address under false pretenses means
nothing at all; absolutely nothing at all. ACLU lawyers and federal
judges do not live in a world where those things happen, and they cannot
imagine them happening, and since they cannot imagine it, therefore it
does not happen. Simple as that. They ought to join the rest of us in
Realworld and see how things are.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 00:23:09 GMT


Steven H. Lichter ([email protected]) wrote:

> This happened to my answering machine, but it was still a pain. I sure
> wish California would wake up and allow full Caller ID and to hell
> with the little old ladies and rights groups that feel their rights
> are being violated; what about our rights to know who calls us?

I think you're misrepresenting the position of the people who were
opposed to Caller IDd in California.  I was opposed to it, or at least
to the way I understood it was to be implemented.

The problem was that it was going to be difficult for callers to turn
off identification.  We wanted a way to turn off Caller ID "permanently"
(until we reset it), rather than for every call we made.  So, for
example, I could dial *77 (I'm making up this number; I don't know
what it might be in other states), and my outgoing calls wouldn't
include the id.  If I happened to call a number which didn't accept
calls from non-id'd numbers, I could dial *78+the number, and that one
call would have the id.  The next call I made would go back to the
default of not being id'd.

If I wanted to turn id'ing back on, I could dial *87, and the Caller ID
would always be included, unless I dialed *88+number, which would turn it
off for that one call.  All of these on/off capabilities would be free.

Under this scheme, both parties would have complete and easy control over
those aspects of caller if that affected them.

That's not what Pac Bell wanted to offer.  They said that if it was
too easy for people to turn off Caller ID, big businesses wouldn't buy
the identification feature, and it wouldn't be worthwhile for Pac Bell
to introduce the new service.  They decided not to offer it under the
PUC's terms.  (Apparently they felt that many people would opt not to
be identified.)

So you should lay the blame for the lack on Caller ID in California on
the phone company's greed, not on the people who felt they have a
right to privacy.


Jack Hamilton      USMail: POB 281107 SF CA 94128  USA
[email protected]     Packet: kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just as your right to to swing your arms
around ends when your fist reaches my face, likewise your right to
privacy ends when you cause my telephone to ring. If you want to live
in your own private little world, no one is stopping you, but when you
choose to interact with others, how can you sit there and say you have
the right to approach them or call them anonymously?  Where are their
rights to be left alone? Like with pizza drivers, their rights don't
seem to matter, eh?

Whenever this Caller-ID pro/con thread starts here, it always seems to
mushroom and bring me a huge stack of mail. So out of purely convenience
in editing, I'll save up replies this time around and publish a random
collection in a few days. To Jack Decker and others who always respond to
controversial threads with *long* missives in reply and then become very
indignant when their article is not used promptly on submission or in its
entireity and go to other newsgroups accusing me of bias and censorship,
please be forewarned: If you want to speak your piece on Caller-ID pro
and con, submit it *promptly*, eliminate all or most of the quoted text,
and realize that probably a dozen other people wrote to say the same
thing as yourself. In a few days I will publish a batch of them, then we
will all be sick and tired of reading about it and I'll squash further
comments for a few months like last time. I'll try to publish a broad
selection, and seeing as how I favor Caller-ID I'll probably let the anti-
people have the 'last word' this time around.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Michael Rubin)
Subject: Re: Advertising by New York Telephone
Date: 13 Feb 1994 02:55:27 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Barry Margolin)
writes:

> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (James
> Joseph) writes:

>> New York Telephone has been spending truck loads of money advertising
>> that they are changing their name to NYNEX.

> If they weren't going to make a big deal about it, they wouldn't have
> bothered changing their names in the first place.  The reason they
> changed the names of the subsidiaries was to change their image.

New York Tel has an image of moronic customer service.  The ads say
things like "we're changing the name, not the service."  What in
heaven kind of image change would that suggest?

> Presumably, the goal of both the name change and the advertising is to
> increase revenues ...

Most of their revenues are from the captive audience of local subscribers.

I suspect they intend to reduce costs by having fewer operators,
service reps, etc. shared among subsidiaries; and fewer different
paper forms for bills and announcements.  (Your problem hunting down a
bad pair in your NYC office building will be handled by somebody in
low-wage Hogwash, Rhode Island, who's never seen a building taller
than two stories...)  But knowing the public is already boggled by
scads of previously unknown phone companies, they are widely
publicizing the name change so as to avoid further customer confusion.


Mike Rubin <[email protected]>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 02:03:41 -0500
From: [email protected] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: Don't Trust the Phone Company - Part 2


On review, I have noticed that the scenario I proposed relative to the
Bodines has been used twice in recent years by HollyWood (at least
that I know of, may be more). In the first a cordless telephone was
used (do the Bodine's have one?).

1) Pump Up the Volume (1990)
2) In the Line of Fire (1993)

Both times the authorities broke in on the wrong people thanks to ANI.

Personally, I would tend to expect this kind of knowlege/inclination to
be more likely in Christian Slater fans than those of Clint Eastwood
(I have seen both so what does that tell you 8*).

Off to the races at Daytona today,


Padgett

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company
From: [email protected] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 07:32:05 EST
Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861


[email protected] (Alan Boritz) writes:

> Oh, no, exactly the opposite.  If I pick up my phone after the first
> ring I know for a fact that my box will miss the Caller-ID data, so
> retrieving the last call and dialing it will get me the SECOND to last
> phone number (since the last is missing).

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who said either the victim or her husband
> picked up the phone during the first ring?

Nobody.  That's not something about which a lay person would notice or
care.  If someone were right next to the phone when it rang, they could
have picked it up before the first ring was completed, completely missing
the Caller-ID data stream.

> Around here, Caller-ID is delivered *immediatly* following the first ring;

But that's NOT the way it's done HERE.  NJ Bell delivers it sometimes
immediately after the first ring, sometimes as late as during the
second ring.  I had to adjust the answer interval on my mailer system
to delay modem pickup until after the SECOND ring, since pickup after
the first ring (even just as the second ring began) USUALLY resulted
in my Caller-ID box missing the data stream.  If I answer my voice
line, at home or in the office, after the first ring, I will USUALLY
lose the Caller-ID info.

> had they picked up the phone even two seconds after the first ring
> stopped but before the second ring began the number shown would have
> been correct.

No, we can't be sure that it would have been correct.  Based upon my
experience with NJ Bell, I would assume a greater than 50% probability
that it WASN'T delivered.


aboritz%[email protected]  or  uunet!drharry!aboritz
Harry's Place BBS (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am curious to know how Caller-ID is
delivered in the middle of a ringing cycle. If NJ Bell does not deliver
until after the second ring then that is indeed unfortunate; no one
should be expected to wait that long before answering the phone if
they are right next to it when it rings. Anyone else from NJ Bell terri-
tory care to respond? Is delivery that retarded in arriving there?   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 06:50:53 -0800
From: [email protected] (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Spying By Employers


In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Bill Tighe) writes:

> Email used as evidence!?* How do investigators verify the source of an
> email message?  How do you know that this very post wasn't sent by my
> evil twin brother Fred?

> Pardon my paranoia but it seems that email messages are easy to fake.
> Even if you don't send incriminating messages yourself, somebody who
> wants your job or your head may do it for you.

> Perhaps it is better to avoid email until the security and privacy
> problems have been solved.

Which is exactly why many people, even if they have Internet access
through their place of work and can send mail or reply to newsgroups
from there, often pay for a commercial account.

Myself included.


[email protected]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Clarence Dold)
Subject: Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994
Organization: a2i network
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 18:17:59 GMT


In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (David Esan) writes:

> Once a quarter I USED to receive the BellCore V&H tape.  Using this

> This is no longer our procedure.  The information in FCC #10 is now

Whatsa FCC #10?  I would not be adverse to discontinuing my
subscription to VHDATA, if FCC #10 was a suitable substitute.


Clarence A Dold - [email protected]
               - Milpitas (near San Jose) & Napa CA.

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: Dispelling a Myth From the Past
Date: 13 Feb 1994 15:36:24 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


Donald E. Kimberlin ([email protected]) wrote:

> cross-subsidization of AT&T's local companies with profits
> from long distance service to Independent areas was _not_ one of them.

Pre-divestiture there were numerous situations where the local BOCs
were only partly owned by AT&T, such as Pacific Telephone (now Pacific
Bell).  It was 90% owned by AT&T and publicly traded on the NYSE.  If
any revenues had been mixed between AT&T Long Lines and the local BOC
you can *bet* that the other 10% stockholders would have *screamed* to
the Securities and Exchange Commission over it.

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Jonathan)
Subject: Re: TDRs and Wiretaps
Date: 13 Feb 1994 03:29:38 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


I read in {Phrack} that it is impossible to tell whether or not there
is a wiretap on your line without the cooperation of your local
telephone company.  The data from the TDR probably will not be useful
to you unless you enlist the telephone company's cooperation.

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Beverly Taylor)
Subject: Re: Need Info on ISDN Phones
Date: 13 Feb 1994 05:05:28 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico


In article <[email protected]>, The Network Group <0004526627@
mcimail.com> wrote:

> I need to know a source for ISDN phonesxxx -- excuse me: voice
> terminals.

> I have heard that AT&T has a few of these but haven't heard of any
> other manufacturers such as Northern Telecom or others. Apparently the
> Northern product for Meridian Digital Centrex is not an ISDN phone.

We have used TelRad, Fujitsu, and AT&T ISDN sets.  They're all used to
run on an AT&T 5ESS.  We're very satisfied with all of them and have
only found these three will work with our CO switch.


Bev Taylor  Communications Services
California State University, Chico
[email protected]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 11:29:00 +0100
From: [email protected] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Converting 11 Bit Data to 10
Organization: CMC Network Products, Copenhagen DENMARK


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
writes:

> Does anyone know of a little black box that can convert the following:
> 1 Start bit, 8 Data bits, 1 Parity bit, 1 Stop bit, ie eleven bit data
> to 1 Start bit, 8 Data bits, 1 Stop bit, ie eight and no parity (10
> bits total).

The eleven bit data format was used by Wang Labs in their Series 2200
systems. I always assumed that this was in order to prevent customers
from supplementing the system with less expensive 3rd party terminals.

Ask Wang users ... or check in computer supply houses for specialty
products for the Wang aftermarket.


Lars Poulsen     Internet E-mail: [email protected]
CMC Network Products    Phone: (011-) +45-31 49 81 08
Hvidovre Strandvej 72 B    Telefax:      +45-31 49 83 08
DK-2650 Hvidovre, DENMARK  Internets: designed and built while you wait

------------------------------

From: Tom Coradeschi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Another Vendor Disguises Self as "AT&T"
Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 20:55:47 GMT


[email protected] (Alan Boritz) writes:

> This must be the week for phone scams in New Jersey. ;) I received
> several calls from a company identifying itself as "Network Services
> of AT&T."  They pitched a software-defined network using AT&T that
> features flat rates of .18/minute over five mileage bands (wow),
> compared to a much better rate we presently get from AT&T.  The fax I
> received, though, showed a Baltimore address and phone number and the
> pitch then stated "utilizing the AT&T long distance network."  In
> other words, just another pushy reseller mis-representing themselves.

My motorcycle dealer (Dave Cushing at Touch of Class BMW in Stewartsville,
NJ) got a call from them too. When he pushed them on the ATT issue,
asking them if there _were_ in fact ATT, they hung up on him. Better
to find some other sucker, since he obviously wasn't gettng hooked ...


tom coradeschi <+> [email protected] <+> DoD#413

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 20:28:08 -0800
From: [email protected] (Rattlesnake Stu)
Subject: Re: What is This Number?
Organization: Central Washington University


carlene lanham ([email protected]) wrote:

> And, I've heard that some exchanges have a number that you call and it
> will repeat back to you your own phone number.  Does anyone know
> anything about this number?  What might it be?

I seem to recall a semi-recent issue of {2600} (The Hacker Quarterly)
listed a number one could call with a CallerID-blocked line and have
one's phone number read back.  As I remember, it was to demonstrate
the inefficacy of blocking one's number when dialing a CallerID
subscriber.  I couldn't find it in the issue I have sitting here, and
don't have any back issues handy, so it might take some looking.  (And
it may have been a 1-900 type number, as I think there was some type
of cost associated with it.  I didn't pay much attention at the time;
perhaps I should have!)  Anyway, if you can find a local collection of
{2600}, you may be able to find it. (And {2600} is usually worth a
grin or two anyway!)


stuart  [email protected]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, they also have a newsgroup, I
understand, called 'alt.2600', and from what I have been told, it is
a really wide open arena for hackerphreaks to do their thing and post
their messages. I don't know how many sites carry it. And bear in
mind with any special services of the 700/800/900/976 variety, all
bets are off where ID-blocking is concerned. You cannot block your
number from those people even though what they get is technically
ANI rather than Caller-ID. Yes there is a difference but the one is
frequently -- almost always, I would say -- as good as the other.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:34:00 EST
From: [email protected] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Telephone Nunbers in France
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


> Sure, now they are still really lucky to enjoy a network that has
> evolved in 15 years from one of the most backward to one of the most
> advanced in the world. There must be some mysterious mechanism, beyond
> competition, ...

Of course there was.  The French government, Telecom's owner, told
them to build a phone system that works, so they did.  French phones
are good, but they aren't cheap.


Regards,

John Levine, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 08:52:00 EST
From: Stephen Goodman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The Dawn of a New Age


In TELECOM Digest #69 Bill Halverson did not know who the author of
the article was. Thanks to Les Johnson ([email protected]) I found
out the author:

    Michael Schrage, columnist for the {Los Angeles Times}.

The article had been floating around Cyberspace when I got it and the
author's name had been deleted.


Steve G   [email protected]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Dan J. Declerck)
Subject: Re: Increase Stand-by Time of Mobile Phones
Date: 13 Feb 1994 17:24:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group


In article <[email protected]>, Bill Mayhew <[email protected].
edu> wrote:

> I am pretty sure that pocket type cellular phones here in the US use a
> power saving feature that cycles the reciever off and on while the
> unit is in standby mode.  It seems to take a second or two for my
> Motorola pocket phone to decide it should ring.  The cellular paging
> channel does send the page out to the mobile several times in a row,
> so there is a reasonable chance of catching the page even if the
> mobile unit were to cycle its receiver.

> I'm not familiar with the way GSM phones in other parts of the world
> work, so there might be a reason they need to stay on continuously.

The GSM spec allows a lengthy (2 minute ?) period to allow the Mobile
Station to power down segments of it's internal parts.


Dan DeClerck    EMAIL: [email protected]    Motorola Cellular APD

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Tasvir Shah)
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 16:28:01 GMT


In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Robb
Topolski) writes:

> QUESTION:  If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding
> number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is
> evaluated by Distinctive Ringing?

ANSWER: The original calling number 555-1133 is (should be) evaluated for
Distinctive Ringing.


tasvir

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (H. Lagle)
Subject: Re: Lebanese Get Drunken Phones
Date: 13 Feb 1994 16:47:00 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC
Reply-To: [email protected]


In article [email protected], [email protected] (Linc Madison) writes:

> In article <[email protected]> Alex Cena wrote:

>> The Lebanese government has approved contracts to buy one million
>> telephone lines from Alcatel Alsthom NV, Siemens AG and AB L.M. Ericsson.
                       ^^^^^^^
> Well, here in Oakland, "Alcatel" is a liquor store (near the corner of
> ALCAtraz and TELegraph), so I can't get away from images of phone
> lines arriving by the keg ...

Someone here has a picture of that liquor store.  I was wondering where
it was and where the name came from.


Hugh Lagle, Alcatel Network Systems,   Raleigh, NC USA
Internet:   [email protected]   *** Individualists Unite ***


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, so now you know the truth, and
I hope it has set you free -- all this time you have been employed by
the subsidiary of a west coast gin mill and didn't know it. When
people ask you what that picture is, you can tell them with pride that
it is the headquarters office of your parent company!  :)  Cheers!   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #81
*****************************


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.